cannabis

[mogadishu]

but a lot of women in the 18th and 19th centuries were unhappy too, just for different reasons. i guess many would have been employed below their actual IQ level and felt unfulfilled.

[Curvey_Brunette]

but a lot of women in the 18th and 19th centuries were unhappy too, just for different reasons. i guess many would have been employed below their actual IQ level and felt unfulfilled.

While that is very true, (I couldn't imagine any child wanting to see their parents as 'servants' and grow up knowing what their adult life will be like), at the same time it gave them a place to be and so offered both stability and consistency.

They had a definitive role in 'life' and so had a place.

The problem with people is they ain't happy unless they have something to complain about.

People with more money, more luxury items and an 'easier life' these days are less happy then they were 100 years ago because the majority today haven't a clue why they're here.

[mogadishu]

so you think it's better to have a place in life you resent than no place?

[Curvey_Brunette]

so you think it's better to have a place in life you resent than no place?

Well how can you know what you're about unless you know where you're at?

Inconsistency is confusing at best, it's much worse when you're not even sure where you should be and what your role should be.

[mogadishu]

maybe that owuld be worse, but it might lead to better things aswell... the woman who is frightened to achieve but does better than she expected.

women exist in very restricted roles in large parts of africa. men tell them what they can wear, what they can say. does that mean they're better off than those weho have a notion of women's rights?

[Curvey_Brunette]

maybe that owuld be worse, but it might lead to better things aswell... the woman who is frightened to achieve but does better than she expected.

women exist in very restricted roles in large parts of africa. men tell them what they can wear, what they can say. does that mean they're better off than those weho have a notion of women's rights?

I think we're getting crossed wires here.

What I'm saying doesn't apply to relationships because that's a different ball game entirely.

But there's no point to making someone who's inarticulate and illiterate in charge of multimillion pound companies just like there's no point in making the CEO of ICI a road sweeper.

Each person in that scenario has a 'place' and a level which they can easily operate on.

The problem these days is that nobody wants to sweep the roads, yet everyone wants to be the CEO and expects the streets to be clean.

[mogadishu]

hmm...

well, possibly. certainly i think there's a sort of desire to cross class barriers that there probably wasn't fifty tears ago.

I dunno.

[Curvey_Brunette]

hmm...

well, possibly. certainly i think there's a sort of desire to cross class barriers that there probably wasn't fifty tears ago.

I dunno.

But how can you cross those levels if you're not bright enough to do so?

I'm not suggesting all thick people should work in factories and sweep the streets, but if that's a vocation that best suits their abilities isn't that what they should do?

Many people can raise themselves to the higher levels, but many people also can't.

[mogadishu]

I don't think class has anything to do with intelligence.... Money, status, connections, education yes, intelligence no. It goes without saying that the higher you want to climb, the brighter you're going to need to be.

[Curvey_Brunette]

I don't think class has anything to do with intelligence.... Money, status, connections, education yes, intelligence no. It goes without saying that the higher you want to climb, the brighter you're going to need to be.

Well, without intelligence you can't earn a lot of money. The higher paid jobs often demand free thinking and making good decisions based on the information you have to hand.

Micheal Carrol had a lot of money but no status, he's also had his money pile depleted by his "friends" and bad management when he was given more than enough money to last him a lifetime.

To have 'connections' you have to know what is appropriate to say and be able to maneuver the 'connection' into doing for you what you want them to do. It's rare that you can directly 'ask' someone in a position of authority or influence to 'have a word'

Everyone has a level at which their education peaks and can go no further. No matter how much time and effort is put into them, they simply can't go any further. It doesn't mean they're a worthless person or lower than everyone else, but they will have to be related to on a different level and no amount of education can 'teach' someone how to interact on a multiple of levels.

It is right that the higher you climb the brighter you have to be, but some people aren't that bright and can't climb that high. Some of them waste their time applying for employment positions that are beyond their abilities or are in jobs where the demands are too great for them to cope with.

The "class system" would give back a lot of structure to society.

[AussieAdam]

Your problem here is defining ''class''

There are many sociologists that belive social stratification is the basis of a workable society ie There always has to be dustbin men, doctors, lawyers, waiters etc. English society has always tried to make sure that the educational system provided the labour to fill these various levels of employment.

Certain schools are innaccessable to all but the wealthy due to fees and intake numbers. Eton, Roedean, Gordonstoun etc etc. These schools will provide the basis of parliament and the power structures that control the country. They will produce the generals and Military top brass and thats a fact of life .

There are the Public schools that meet the middle ground charging fees that skilled workers and professional people can afford - Theres usually one in every county - The parents working their butts of so little jimmy can wear his 50s school cap and wear a nice school tie with a fancy crest on. They will give the country the majority of barristers, surgeons, and many of the heads of industry and commerce - Richard Branson being a good example


Then of course there are the high schools that the majority of people attend - Even then there are those that really just educate for the sake of it - just about scraping a pass on an ofsted report. With good proactive parents and the will of a bright child little Jason or Kyleigh will take their A levels and go on to get a BA and £30ks worth of student debt. Some will achieve great success in law, education and commerce but the majority will fill the lower levels of the social structure , office workers, factory workers, bin men etc etc ..with some sinking into and climbing out of the dole on a regular basis

Some people see class as being a 5ltr four wheel drive in the driveway of their 3 bedroom detatched house by the river and the labradoodle walking round their five acres of lawn.

Others see it as having a powerful job or a seat on the local magistrates bench while dutiful wife attends coffee mornings at the WI.

I do like Curveys fine example though - You can take a toe rag like Micheal Carrol and give him 10 million notes and he can buy as much gold bracelets as he likes ...What you cannot buy is class.

It comes from breeding and knowing how to conduct yourself and behave at anything from a meeting with the butcher to hosting a weekend function at a country manor. Its behaviour thats passed down through generations of breeding. It cant be bought and you cannot aquire it. Class just is - has david Beckham got class ? No hes a good soccer player and filthy rich but listen to him talk and you can see that he has the intelligence of a dead cat - Altho he seems a nice geezer, know what I mean mate?

Socialism evolved in Russia - Executing the Tsar and his family during WW One did not eradicate class though - Oh Sure equality for the comrades was the goal and co-operative working with the fruits of society being spread evenly is a noble aim ....But there were more divisons in the USSR than there are in the capitalist class system - Thats why eventually it failed

Class is not about money or job status or where you live - Its what you are and about breeding

I

[mogadishu]

of course class is about money. what pauper can become part of the aristocracy, however finessed his manners, impeccable his connections and refined his intellect?

[mogadishu]

Some of them waste their time applying for employment positions that are beyond their abilities or are in jobs where the demands are too great for them to cope with.

do you have cast iron examples of an increase in this since the 60's, or is it just your personal opinion?

The "class system" would give back a lot of structure to society.

yes... and all the problems it created to boot.

[Curvey_Brunette]

do you have cast iron examples of an increase in this since the 60's, or is it just your personal opinion?

Off the top of my head, what about Nick Leeson and his ability to g amble all the money that made Barings fall?

And there's always some politician somewhere who can't cope with the pressures of political life, makes bad decisions and end up out on his ear, a bit like Tony Blair

yes... and all the problems it created to boot.

So from your point of view, what problems does a class system cause?

[Curvey_Brunette]

Your problem here is defining ''class''

Ohhhh there's a hard one!!!

To me class isn't knowing which fork to use, which wine to drink, or anything that like, to me that's being pretentious.

Class to me has to be knowing how to interact with people on an equal level, having a sense of dignity and self respect that isn't aloof.

In my experience, the classiest people I know are the who are so comfortable with themselves they can be themselves.